87 réponses à ce sujet

[SagaX]

Which of these two difficulty system you preffer for MEA and why?
NOTE: We're not talking about difficulty setting(easy, normal, hard, hardcore, ect).

1- STATUS UP DIFFICULTY GAMES.
Games where players gain status up when level up. Enemies also recieve status up when they are leveled. These games' difficulty depend and rely more on the status of player and enemies. Enemies with higher status may be unfairly hard or very hard, but as player levels up the enemies become easy and easier, even boses. Most of these games games color swap enemies(and add a few changes to their basic design) to indicate they have higher status.
Most of these games are played by mashing attacks and receiving damage, relying on stats like Attack, Defense, Life, Evasion etc given by Level(achieved by ExpPoints). Also these kind of games put the player to spend a lot of time grinding and farming ExpPoints just to make the game fair, easy or easier. Some games Level up to 99 or 100, others up to 256 or something. Thats a lot of time spending just leveling up! specially on higher level where players get less and each time lesser ExpPoints! Also worth noting: Leveling Up is OBLIGATORY, player cant refuse or deny to receive ExpPoints and Level Up. Mostly RPGs, and its sub types.

2- SKILL DIFFICULTY GAMES.
In these games the player receives no status up or rarely minimal status up. Player mostly find new weapon and armor, or items that grants new moves, powers or abilities, skill points or ExpPoints to unlock moves. These games' difficulty relies more on the player's skills. Here doesnt matter if the player has the best weapon, armor, equipment, moves, player wont be able to smash attacks and receive attacks because enemies are designed to be stronger. Therfore this games force the player to play smart, to watch carefully, analyze and react, to know the right time to attack, defend, evade, run, etc. So, there are two types of skills in these games, the player natural skill, and the in game characters' skills.
These games therefore dont force players to grind or farm ExpPoint to level up and receive status up to be strongers, and so players can have more time to enjoy directly the adventure itself. Mostly action and adventure games.


Thankfully, MassEffect 3 Multiplayer is SKILL TYPE. We've all seen Lvl 20 people being easily taken down on Bronze, Lvl 01 people on 1st score on Gold, or even Lvl 01 people keeping up in platinum. Thankfully ME3M is based more on the actual player skills than the character's status, and honestly hope MassEffectAndromeda to keep it SKILL TYPE and no STATUS TYPE, so people can enjoy more action itself than ExpPoint farming/grinding.

[AlanC9]

I'm not sure I understand how you're using "status" here.

[Feybrad]

1 for Single Player Mode.

 

2 for Multiplayer Mode.

[SagaX]

I'm not sure I understand how you're using "status" here.

¿Do you prefer a game that gets easy or hard because of characters and enemies level differences, which in turns forces you to grind or farm ExpPoints to Level Up?

Or ¿Do you prefer a game that gets easy or harder depending more on your personal skill(as player) which therefore doesn't force you to grind/farm ExpPoints to LevelUp, but instead forces you to play smarter and better?

[Cyonan]

I'm pretty sure you mean stats, not status. Status in RPG is generally used to refer to any buffs/debuffs a character might have. Stats are your strength, dexterity, intellect, wisdom, etc.

 

Also keep in mind that in most stat based combat systems you do still need to play smart and tactical, on top of being able to build a viable character. The main differences are:

 

Stat based - More tactical skill is required. You need to be smart about where you move your characters and when they use their abilities.

"skill" based - Faster paced and twitch aiming is required.

 

But Mass Effect is meant to be more action based, so it will stray towards that one a bit more. Of course, having the best equipment does make a significant difference still. Have a game of ME3 MP with the Shuriken and another with the Harrier. The Harrier far outdoes the Shuriken.

[AlanC9]

¿Do you prefer a game that gets easy or hard because of characters and enemies level differences, which in turns forces you to grind or farm ExpPoints to Level Up?
Or

¿. Do you prefer a game that gets easy or harder depending more on your personal skill(as player) which therefore doesn't force you 6to grind/farm ExpPoints to LevelUp, but instead forces you to play smarter and better?

OK. I'm with Cyonan; I don't think "status" is the right word in English for that concept. (Incidentally," ¿" isn't used in English.)

RPGs typically are stat-based. ME2 and ME3 are already too far into the skill-based paradigm for many players.

[Feybrad]

"Statistics" is the Word you're all looking for. "Stats" for short.

[The Heretic of Time]

I think the OP means "level" when he says "status". If you read it like that it makes more sense.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I hate starting out a game pathetically weak where one shot kills you, and then ten levels later, wearing the exact same equipment it takes ten shots to kill you. It really doesn't make any sense.

 

I hate for example in a dungeon game having to kill rats for the first three hours until I'm strong enough to do "real questing". Why not start the character out at level 7 to begin with and avoid the pain and agony of levels 1-7? Is it because we "didn't earn it?" Who cares? The first 7 levels aren't fun. I'm playing the game to have fun not to die because a rat bit me in the toe.

 

So l think maybe if they give us skill trees, armor and weapons, and stuff like that it would be fine. But a decent amount of hit points.

[SagaX]

Yes I was kind of confused about the right terms. I'll talk about them more gamer. I hope Bioware doesn't get angry at my for mentioning other games as examples :S

I remember played NES and SNES Castlevanias. I remember how hard those games were, how strong those enemies were, and how I, MYSELF, had to learn to play smarter, harder, faster... Or lose.

I was so excited about Castlevania Symphony of the Night. Until Alcuard started to level up, and gain status up like HP, MP, Attack, Defense. And very strong and fearful enemies I had to previously fight with caution and startegy. But as soon as Alucard LevelsUp enemies could be defeated with mindless button smashing...

Recently I got Dragons Crown, and I kind of got bored of the game because, technically: its not an adventure but a "quest to level up". Then I read in official blog that they add new difficulty and level cap of 256... ¡Dafaq!! Meaning that instead of new enemies and stages, they just increase the level of enemies and level cap of players!?!

That reminded me a friend of mine who is a virgin in shooter games and bought Destiny. Once I asked him whats good about that Halo wannabe? He say something about grinding levels(he is more used to traditional RPGs).

OMFG!! I hope MEA keeps its formula and don't try to copy Destiny.

I like ME(3) system. At LevelUp you do not get increased HP, defense, attack or anything, just Skill Points. You dont have to spend time grinding or farming Exp and therefore enjoy the actual game. TeS: Skyrim was also like this, even on harder difficulty I never felt I had to farm Exp, just go from one adventure to the next.

SO PEOPLE... WOULD YOU LIKE MEA TO BE A GAME WERE YOU HAVE TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME LEVELING YOUR CHARACTER UP TO HAVE STATS HIGHER THAN ENEMIES, OR A GAME THAT FOCUSES MORE ON ACTION AND CHALLENGING ENEMIES??

Ps: Im not even sure if I made it cleared, but definitely some people will feel related to some of what I wrote :S

[N7Jamaican]

¿Do you prefer a game that gets easy or hard because of characters and enemies level differences, which in turns forces you to grind or farm ExpPoints to Level Up?

Or ¿Do you prefer a game that gets easy or harder depending more on your personal skill(as player) which therefore doesn't force you to grind/farm ExpPoints to LevelUp, but instead forces you to play smarter and better?

 

A mixture of both would be fine.

[SagaX]

I hate starting out a game pathetically weak where one shot kills you, and then ten levels later, wearing the exact same equipment it takes ten shots to kill you. It really doesn't make any sense.
 
I hate for example in a dungeon game having to kill rats for the first three hours until I'm strong enough to do "real questing". Why not start the character out at level 7 to begin with and avoid the pain and agony of levels 1-7? Is it because we "didn't earn it?" Who cares? The first 7 levels aren't fun. I'm playing the game to have fun not to die because a rat bit me in the toe.
 
So l think maybe if they give us skill trees, armor and weapons, and stuff like that it would be fine. But a decent amount of hit points.

¡Exactly! Dislike games were you are FORCED TO DEPEND on LevelUp(increased status) and therefore forced to spend more time in farming than the adventure itself.

But I know some people love that. But MEA cant be both. You cant have one system or game engine for History Mode and then another entirely different on Multiplayer.

I hope MEA keeps its emphasis on accion and adventure instead of Destiny's Level grinding.

[SagaX]

A mixture of both would be fine.

Yeah. In some sense all developers want to hook the player a lot. Some games hook players by grinding and farming, but that has to carefully done to prevent boredom(like I got bored of Dragons Crown).

Maybe making the player to look for money, and pieces to create and improve weapons, armors and accessories. That type of farming is kind of less boring because it gives you more than one objective to spend time.

But that would be more like for Multiplayer, since its there where players get hooked hard. Maybe for Campaign items should be found during Quests and bought in shops.

The level system on ME3' campaign and Multiplayer I find it satisfactory: never had to worry about spending more extra time farming away from my main goal. Same in Skyrim

[Sylvius the Mad]

SO PEOPLE... WOULD YOU LIKE MEA TO BE A GAME WERE YOU HAVE TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME LEVELING YOUR CHARACTER UP TO HAVE STATS HIGHER THAN ENEMIES, OR A GAME THAT FOCUSES MORE ON ACTION AND CHALLENGING ENEMIES??

Stats. Player skill should never matter in an RPG.

Also, I would argue that this is exactly how the ME3 single-player works.

Also, I think you're oversimplifying how stat-based games work. With RNG, the strongest character won't always win, and the rules should be sufficiently complex that a straight comparison between characters to see which is "stronger" wouldn't actually be meaningful.

[Sylvius the Mad]

But I know some people love that. But MEA cant be both. You cant have one system or game engine for History Mode and then another entirely different on Multiplayer.

Why not? DAI does. ME3 does.

[MGW7]

I want to be able to outplay my enemies, not have to grind out because there is no choice.

 

In Me3 there are several enemies who present skill gate, Guardians for example, they can be negated with equipment, but early on they are a challenge of figuring out when and where to shoot. You don't simply fire away at their front until they are dead.

 

I want the enemies to be more dynamic, with ways to defeat them that are not simply stand there mashing away until they are dead, and for each to be a threat on it's own.

 

Enemies in DAI are grindy, and present much less of a threat individually. One enemy is rarely a problem, as the PC is simply more powerful, and can generally face tank said lone enemy for little cost. Compared to ME3 where even a single trooper enemy could take down a team with a well placed grenade, and was a greater threat to many of the classes than the mighty bosses slowly lumbering about.

 

Make each enemy a threat, and make different enemies more or less threatening to all the variations of PC differently.

[Cyonan]

Something that needs reiterating here:

 

Games which are stat based are not always the same as games which require you to grind XP to be able to keep up at a reasonable pace. Especially in many newer RPGs which will have some form of level scaling to keep the difficulty roughly where it should be, which also solves another problem in RPGs where you can become over leveled by doing all the side quests and the game becomes too easy because you're overpowered.

 

These days it is primarily MMOs and JRPGs that feature a lot of grinding that is actually required in order to progress.

 

As I said before, it's very likely to go towards more action oriented combat but I see no problems with offering a pause to aim feature for people who like it. I think it's clunky as hell to aim like that, but then I'm free to ignore it completely and play it like a normal third person shooter.

 

Also, Mass Effect 3 does not really have challenging enemies. Even Insanity was too easy, in my opinion.

[WittyUsername]

I quite enjoy stat-focused games. Something about being a pus early on but a walking god later is enjoyable to me. There's a sense of thrill in going to a place meant for higher levels and having to really do a lot of running and striking on a giant level creature.

 

Perhaps I simply like progression and unlocking things. Finding new ways to overpower myself. When I first played Oblivion, I did so with a mod that removed the creature leveling up with me because I wanted to run into high level creatures early on. Got punched in the face by an Ogre the first day. That's fun to me.

 

Still given that the character will likely have some background in combat and military, s/he should have some "level" already. Perhaps skills based on selected history.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I want to be able to outplay my enemies, not have to grind out because there is no choice.

I would like my contribution to combat to be an intellectual one, not a physical one. How cleverly my character uses the mechanics to his advantage, not how quickly and accurately I can move a mouse.

Especially since ME's pause-to-aim feature renders that trivial anyway. Ever since ME2, we haven't been able to miss in an ME game unless we chose to introduce that uncertainty ourselves, so every battle that was winnable was winnable regardless of player skill.

I want the enemies to be more dynamic, with ways to defeat them that are not simply stand there mashing away until they are dead, and for each to be a threat on it's own.

I'll agree with the first half of that, but I don't need (or want) every enemy to be a challenge. Unless the game has a shallower power-curve overall, I should be able to out-level my opponents, and some enemies should be weaker simply because having them be powerful would break the setting. Generic soldiers should never be particularly powerful (though they could conceivably be dangerous if the game's mechanics make the characters particularly fragile).

Enemies in DAI are grindy, and present much less of a threat individually. One enemy is rarely a problem, as the PC is simply more powerful, and can generally face tank said lone enemy for little cost.

Unless the PC is badly outleveled, which is again something that should be possible. I'd like to be able to encounter enemies that we basically can't defeat without an absurd level of luck (if at all).

Compared to ME3 where even a single trooper enemy could take down a team with a well placed grenade, and was a greater threat to many of the classes than the mighty bosses slowly lumbering about.

I'm not finding any of the opponents in ME3 to be nearly as dangerous as you describe.

...make different enemies more or less threatening to all the variations of PC differently.

This I would like.

But I'd like more than 4 varieties of enemy.

[Cyonan]

Still given that the character will likely have some background in combat and military, s/he should have some "level" already. Perhaps skills based on selected history.

 

It's already been mentioned that our character will be combat trained, but not have any actual combat experience. We'll be rookies this time around rather than already a veteran like Shep was.

[Fast Jimmy]

¿Do you prefer a game that gets easy or hard because of characters and enemies level differences, which in turns forces you to grind or farm ExpPoints to Level Up?

Or ¿Do you prefer a game that gets easy or harder depending more on your personal skill(as player) which therefore doesn't force you to grind/farm ExpPoints to LevelUp, but instead forces you to play smarter and better?

The way you phrase that shows an insane amount of bias in the answer you are looking for.

For the reocrd, this is still (on paper) an RPG genre, so I'd like to see an RPG form of gameplay. Not a twitch-based Gears clone.

[Enigmatick]

The way you phrase that shows an insane amount of bias in the answer you are looking for.

For the reocrd, this is still (on paper) an RPG genre, so I'd like to see an RPG form of gameplay. Not a twitch-based Gears clone.

Explain to me in absolute facts what role playing combat is.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Explain to me in absolute facts what role playing combat is.

Given that roleplaying games can exist both in computers and on the tabletop, I would expect roleplaying combat to be a system that worked in both media.

If it wouldn't work on a tabletop, it's not RPG combat.

All of the ME games so far have combat that would work on a tabletop, so they qualify.

[PartTimeWolf]

Skill based like ME3MP is better in my opinion.  The stats leveling in DA:I was a terrible system.

[Saigeo]

Never stats. It has proven a disaster. Level abilities is all you need and keeps game challenging and RPG enough. Plus there is no way people can cheat their way into superhuman strengths. Plus you get all the stats you need by leveling weapons etc..., maybe armor (stress maybe)...